Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Aannan Babile Milk Production Enterprise
Aannan Babile Milk Production Enterprise
June, 2022
Babile
contents
Executive Summary
COMPANY PROFILE
ENTERPRISE.
2 Project owner Mrs. Fuad Mohammed
Babile Site.
4 Head of organization/business, Mrs. Fuad Mohammed.
Countries that are currently enjoying the highest standard of living are those that
have a well–developed animal agriculture as demand for animal products
increases with economic development. In the Ethiopian context, despite the
huge potential the country has to produce milk, there is a chronic shortage of the
product in most part of the country. This arises mainly from insufficient
production coupled with inhibitive cultural taboos related to consumption and
absence of proper processing and marketing (Zegeye, 2003). Therefore,
improving livestock productivity and their respective marketing activities may
improve the sector’s contribution to the GDP.
This profile envisages the establishment of cattle dairy farm with annual
capacity of thirty (30) heads exotic cows and fourteen (14) locally cows heads
cows for dairy at the initial stage heads of cattle. The present demand for cattle
milk is estimated at 127,731 tons per annum. The demand is projected to reach
229,334 tons by the year 2012.The envisaged project will create employment
opportunity for about 10 persons. The total initial investment cost of the project
is estimated at Birr 2,500,000 out of which 383,713 are for plant housing and
equipment.
This business plan profile envisages the establishment dairy farm of with annual
capacity thirty (30) heads exotic cows and fourteen (14) locally cows for dairy
at the initial stage. Babile town is a town which is located in East Hararghe zone
Farmers from such formal marketing outlets prefer to produce other dairy
products instead, such as cooking butter and cottage cheese. The vast majority
of milk produced outside urban centres in Ethiopia is processed into dairy
products by the households, and sold to traders or other households in local
markets (Debrah and Berhanu, 1991). Most of the milk is produced in the rural
areas, while the profitable market for it exists largely in the urban centres. The
major portion of the milk comes from small dairy farmers with few milk
animals located in the rural areas.
What is produced on the animal farm has to reach the market, and the nearer the
market the lesser would be the transportation charges and the lesser would-be
loss due to spoilage. Hence, milk being the most perishable commodity,
requires an efficient marketing and market outlet. The price gap between the
terminal and primary markets seems to be large. Under these conditions,
farmers may have no incentives to improve the quality of their produce.
In addition to the above facts the following points taken by the promoter for the
project justifications;
The promoter of the envisioned Milk production enterprise has ample business
experience and management skill in different sectors. Currently he needs to
extend his experience, management skill and financial asset to the envisioned
milk processing factory.
The major constraint to increase the welfare of small holders is their inability to
access markets. Enhancing the ability of poor smallholder farmers to reach
markets and actively engage in them is one of the most pressing development
challenges. Remoteness results in reduced farm-gate prices, returns to labour
and capital, and increased input and transaction costs. This, in turn, reduces
incentives to participate in economic transactions and results in subsistence
rather than market-oriented production systems. Sparsely populated rural areas,
and high transport costs are physical barriers to accessing markets; lack of
negotiating skills, lack of collective organizations and lack of market
information are other impediments to market access. In addition, there are factor
that give rise to inefficiencies to a marketing system. These factors may
originate in technical barriers including lack of market information, structural
elements and government programmes and policies. Costs of marketing are
usually high due to poorly developed physical and institutional facilities,
absence of marketing services such as standardization, market information,
financing arrangement, storage, transportation, processing, etc.
This would otherwise result in high risk of marketing and high barriers to
growth, and poorly motivated producers and inadequate marketing institutions.
The primary reason, among others, seems to be the inefficient marketing that is
characterized by inadequate marketing facilities and high margins. The price
gap between the terminal and primary markets seems to be wide. Under these
conditions, farmers may have no incentives to improve the quality of their
produce through proper management practices (Jones, 1972).
An efficient, integrated, and responsive market mechanism, that is, market with
good performance is of crucial importance for optimum allocation of resources
in agriculture and for stimulating farmers to increase output (Jones, 1972; FAO,
1999; Acharya and Agarwal, 1999). Without having convenient marketing
conditions, the possible increment in output, rural incomes and foreign
exchange resulting from the introduction of improved production technologies
could not be effective. An improvement in marketing efficiency, thus, attracts
the attention of many countries and viewed as an important national
development strategy.
The market planning process and policy preparation often take place with little
or no consultation with people for whom the planned activities are intended.
Many agricultural product markets have been monopolized and controlled by
parastatal agencies, and because price had been set administratively rather than
through market forces, the allocation of resources, therefore, had become highly
inefficient (Scarborough and Kydd, 1992).
The population growth, urbanization and income growth that fuelled the
increase in milk consumption during the last two decades are expected to
continue in the future, creating a veritable livestock revolution. This revolution
presents new and expanding market opportunities for smallholder livestock
producers.
Unit Total
1 Agro-industrial byproducts Lit 420 10 4,200
Total 108,820
Total 383,713
10. Construction of fence site
0 0 1,750,000
1 200,000 1,550,000
2 200,000 1,350,000
3 200,000 1,150,000
4 200,000 950,000
5 200,000 750,000
6 200,000 550,000
7 200,000 350,000
8 150,000 200,000
9 100,000 100,000
10 100,000 0
11.5. Depreciation Schedule
Total 428.3
11.6. Investment
The total investment cost of the project including working capital is estimated at
Birr 2,500,000. The Owner shall contribute 30% of the finance in the form of
equity while the remaining 70% is to be financed by bank loan (Commercial
Bank).
Table 6: Investment cost
Investment Costs
No Unit Total
Investment Type (Items) Units Quantity Remarks
. cost Cost
1 Crossbred cows No 30 50,00 1,500,000
2 Local cows No 14 7,000
0 98,000
3 Office furniture No 10 1000 10,000
13. Sustainability
Item Desertion costs Price Per Per Total price Total sales
day month per month per year
Milk cost (Price of raw cow’s 15 540lit 16,200 lit 243,000 birr 2,916,000
milk (ETB/liter) birr
Yogurt (ETB/unit)/cup 10 birr 40 1200cup 12,000 144,000
cups
Butter package (ETB/unit) 200 birr 20kg 600 kg 12,000 144,000
Cheese package (ETB/unit) 80 birr 20kg 600kg 12,000 144,000
Total sales 279,000 3,348,000
Overhead Costs (ETB/Year
Cost of the activities for 1000 1000 1000 12,000
Medical (ETB) /month
Variable electricity 1000 1000 1000 12,000
consumption (KWh/year
Total overhead cost 2,000 24,000
15.Revenue projection
Based on the price and the capacity program of the “Aannan Babile” Milk
Production Enterprise” the revenue of the enterprise projected as indicated in
the table below.
Production Years
Descriptions Year 1 Year 2 Year 3
Revenue
Expenses
Asset
Current Asset
Cash 819,078
Inventory of Raw materials and inputs 1,831,142.3
Total Current Asset 2,650,220.3
Fixed Asset
Land, Building and Construction 528,200
Machineries and Equipment’s 101,380
Office Equipment 10,000
Total Fixed Asset 639,580
Less: accumulated deprecation (428.3) 639,151.7
Total Asset 3,289,372
Liability
Current liability
Salary expenses 153,600
Operating and administrative expense 21,660
Interest Expense 170,000
Account Payable 24,000
Tax payable 351,033.6
Total current Liability 720,294
Owners’ Equity
Capital 1,750,000
Net income 819,078
Total Liability & owners’ Equity 3,289,372
Milk Producers
Dairy
cooperative Processing
plants
The social impact appraisal is concerned with the broader social effects of the
project on people.
The social benefit that could be derived from the intended project is presented
as follows.
As a result of the existence of the project could be able to create jobs for 10
professionals with an average family size of six people the project could provide
sustainable benefit to a total of 60 people.